The pilot judgment procedure at the European Court of Human Rights is described as an innovation in the way the court deals with cases and an effective means of combating the court's backlog. This article analyses the court's jurisprudence and procedural rules to determine whether the pilot procedure is an innovation and whether it is an effective means of achieving its goals. At the outset it should be noted that the objectives of the pilot procedure are not being questioned here, systemic human rights abuses should be eradicated wherever they arise and the court has an important role in tackling them, this article merely critiques the means adopted by the court to tackle these issues. The primary argument of this article is that the component parts of the pilot judgment procedure are not innovative and that the use of pilot judgments has the potential to damage the court on many levels by further delaying the processing of applications, politicising thecourt and undermining the court's authority more generally.